Friday, April 26, 2013

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA 3; P.L.
112-177), enacted September 28, 2012, amended the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to reauthorize and revise, through FY2017, the
collection and use of fees to enhance and accelerate the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA’s) pesticide licensing (registration) activities. Among other
provisions, P.L. 112-177 increases the amounts of certain fees, revises
the schedule for fee assessment and review deadlines for reviewing
specific registration decisions, modifies provisions for small business
reductions of fees, adds provisions for the enhancement of pesticide decision information
tracking systems and for initial content preliminary screening activities, and eliminates
pre-PRIA reregistration fee (1988) authorities. PRIA 2 (P.L. 110-94), enacted
October 9, 2007, and set to expire at the end of FY2012, reauthorized and
revised fee collection provisions first established under PRIA 1 (P.L.
108-199), enacted January 23, 2004.

EPA is responsible for regulating the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides
under the authority of two statutes. FIFRA (7 U.S.C. §136-136y), a
licensing statute, requires EPA to review and register the use of
pesticide products. FFDCA (21 U.S.C. §346a) requires the establishment of maximum
limits (tolerances) for pesticide residues on food in interstate commerce. EPA
was also required to reevaluate older, registered pesticides (i.e., “reregistration”
for pesticides registered prior to 1984, and more recently, “registration
review”) and to reassess existing tolerances to ensure they meet current
safety standards. Although U.S. Treasury revenues cover much of the costs
for administering these acts, various fees paid by pesticide manufacturers and
other registrants have supplemented EPA appropriations for many years as a
means intended to, in part, increase the pace of the agency’s activities
under FIFRA and FFDCA.

In March 2013, EPA reported the completion of 1,574 pesticide
registration-related decisions subject to PRIA 2 during FY2012, for a
total of 12,165 decisions since the enactment of PRIA 1 in 2004. For
FY2012, EPA reported expending $13.4 million of the $20.3 million in available revenues
(composed of $15.6 million in net receipts of new registration service fees
collected in FY2012 and $4.7 million carried forward from FY2011).
Expenditures decreased by nearly 7% in FY2012 compared to $14.3 million in
FY2011, primarily a result of a 35% reduction in expenditures for
contracts.

Authority for collecting pesticide fees dates back to the 1954 FFDCA amendments
(P.L. 518; July 22, 1954), which, as passed, required the collection of
fees “sufficient to provide adequate service” for establishing maximum
residue levels (tolerances) for pesticides on food. Authority to collect
fees was expanded with the 1988 FIFRA amendments (P.L. 100-532). The 1996 amendments
to FIFRA and FFDCA, or the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), extended
EPA’s authority to collect certain fees through FY2001. Prior to the enactment
of PRIA 1 (P.L. 108-199) in 2004, Congress had extended these fee
authorities annually through appropriations legislation. Since 1998,
Presidents’ budget requests have included proposals to modify existing fee
structures to further increase revenues for pesticide activities, but were not adopted
in legislation and in some cases specifically prohibited by Congress. The
FY2013 President’s budget request, submitted to Congress February 13,
2012, did not include similar proposals for supplemental fees, but instead
acknowledged the need for reauthorization of the current fees at increased
levels to cover a greater portion of relevant program operating costs.

Date of Report: April 19, 2013
Number of Pages: 41Order Number: RL32218Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways
through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable
fossil fuel resources both domestically and internationally. Recent
expansion in natural gas production, primarily as a result of new or improved
technologies (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, directional drilling) used on
unconventional resources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal-bed methane),
has made natural gas an increasingly significant component in the U.S.
energy supply. This expansion, however, has prompted renewed questions
about the potential impacts of natural gas systems on human health and the environment,
including impacts on air quality. Unlike the debate over groundwater
contamination or induced seismicity—where questions exist as to whether or
not production activities contribute significantly to these impacts—there
is little question that natural gas systems emit air pollutants. The
concerns, instead, are the following:

Which pollutants?

How much of each pollutant?

From which sources?

What are the impacts of the emissions?

How much is the cost of abatement?

What are the respective roles of federal, state, and local governments?

Air pollutants are released by natural gas systems through the leaking,
venting, and combustion of natural gas; the combustion of other fossil
fuel resources; and the discharge of particulate matter during associated
operations. Emission sources include pad, road, and pipeline construction; well drilling,
completion, and flowback activities; and gas processing and transmission
equipment such as controllers, compressors, dehydrators, pipes, and
storage vessels. Pollutants include, most prominently, methane and
volatile organic compounds—of which the natural gas industry is one of the
highest-emitting industrial sectors in the United States—as well as nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and various forms of hazardous
air pollutants.

EPA’s 2012 Air Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to a consent decree
issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, promulgated air
standards for several source categories in the crude oil and natural gas
sector on August 16, 2012. These standards—effective October 15, 2012—revised
existing rules and promulgated new ones to regulate emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide, and hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) from many production and processing activities that had never
before been covered by federal oversight. The standards control air
pollution, in part, through the capture of fugitive releases of natural gas.
Thus, compliance with the standards has the potential to translate into
economic benefits, as producers may be able to offset abatement costs with
the value of product recovered and sold. Using this assumption, EPA
estimated the annual benefits of the standards to be VOC reductions of 190,000 tons,
HAP reductions of 12,000 tons, methane reductions of 1.0 million tons, and a
net cost savings of $11 million to $19 million after the sale of recovered
product. Industry and other stakeholders have disputed these figures as
both too high and too low. Moreover, the expansion ofboth
industry production and government regulation of natural gas has sparked
discussion on a number of outstanding issues, including the following:

defining the roles of local, state, and federal governments,

determining the proper coverage of pollutants and sources,

establishing comprehensive emissions data,

understanding the human health and environmental impacts of emissions, and

estimating the costs of pollution abatement.

Scope and Purpose of This Report

This report serves as a brief summary of the information provided in CRS Report
R42833, Air Quality Issues in Natural Gas Systems. The report is
structured similarly, providing information on the natural gas industry
and the types and sources of air pollutants in the sector. It then examines
the role of the federal government in regulating these emissions, including the provisions
in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the regulatory activities of EPA. It concludes
with a brief discussion of the aforementioned outstanding issues. For more
detail, reference information, and further citations, refer to CRS Report
R42833.

Date of Report: April 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 21Order Number: R42986Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways
through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable
fossil fuel resources both domestically and internationally. Recent
expansion in natural gas production, primarily as a result of new or improved
technologies (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, directional drilling) used on
unconventional resources (e.g., shale, tight sands, and coal-bed methane),
has made natural gas an increasingly significant component in the U.S.
energy supply. This expansion, however, has prompted renewed questions
about the potential impacts of natural gas systems on human health and the environment,
including impacts on air quality. Unlike the debate over groundwater
contamination or induced seismicity—where questions exist as to whether or
not production activities contribute significantly to these impacts—there
is little question that natural gas systems emit air pollutants. The
concerns, instead, are the following:

Which pollutants?

How much of each pollutant?

From which sources?

What are the impacts of the emissions?

How much is the cost of abatement?

What are the respective roles of federal, state, and local governments?

Air pollutants are released by natural gas systems through the leaking,
venting, and combustion of natural gas; the combustion of other fossil
fuel resources; and the discharge of particulate matter during associated
operations. Emission sources include pad, road, and pipeline construction; well drilling,
completion, and flowback activities; and gas processing and transmission
equipment such as controllers, compressors, dehydrators, pipes, and
storage vessels. Pollutants include, most prominently, methane and
volatile organic compounds—of which the natural gas industry is one of the
highest-emitting industrial sectors in the United States—as well as nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and various forms of hazardous
air pollutants.

EPA’s 2012 Air Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to a consent decree
issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, promulgated air
standards for several source categories in the crude oil and natural gas
sector on August 16, 2012. These standards—effective October 15, 2012—revised
existing rules and promulgated new ones to regulate emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide, and hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) from many production and processing activities that had never
before been covered by federal oversight. The standards control air pollution,
in part, through the capture of fugitive releases of natural gas. Thus, compliance
with the standards has the potential to translate into economic benefits, as
producers may be able to offset abatement costs with the value of product
recovered and sold. Using this assumption, EPA estimated the annual
benefits of the standards to be VOC reductions of 190,000 tons, HAP
reductions of 12,000 tons, methane reductions of 1.0 million tons, and a net
cost savings of $11 million to $19 million after the sale of recovered
product. Industry and other stakeholders have disputed these figures as both
too high and too low. Moreover, the expansion of both industry production
and government regulation of natural gas has sparked discussion on a number
of outstanding issues, including the following:

defining the roles of local, state, and federal governments,

determining the proper coverage of pollutants and sources,

establishing comprehensive emissions data,

understanding the human health and environmental impacts of emissions, and

estimating the costs of pollution abatement.

Scope and Purpose of This Report

The report begins by briefly outlining the production, processing,
transmission, and distribution phases of the natural gas industry, then
characterizes the types and sources of pollutants in the sector. It then
turns to the role of the federal government in regulating these emissions,
including the provisions in the Clean Air Act and the regulatory activities
of the EPA. It concludes with an extended discussion of the aforementioned
outstanding issues. For an abbreviated version of this report, see CRS
Report R42986, Air Quality Issues in Natural Gas Systems: In Brief.

Date of Report: April 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 77Order Number: R42833Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Over
the past several decades, the United States has delivered financial and
technical assistance for climate change activities in the developing world
through a variety of bilateral and multilateral programs. The United
States and other industrialized countries committed to such assistance
through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, Treaty
Number: 102-38, 1992), the Copenhagen Accord (2009), and the UNFCCC Cancun Agreements
(2010), wherein the higher-income countries pledged jointly up to $30 billion
of “fast start” climate financing for lower-income countries for the
period 2010-2012, and a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually
by 2020. The Cancun Agreements also proposed that the pledged funds are to
be new, additional to previous flows, adequate, predictable, and sustained, and
are to come from a wide variety of sources, both public and private, bilateral
and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

One potential mechanism for mobilizing a share of the proposed international
climate financing is the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund (GCF), proposed in the
Cancun Agreements and accepted by Parties during the December 2011
conference in Durban, South Africa. The fund aims to assist developing
countries in their efforts to combat climate change through the provision of
grants and other concessional financing for mitigation and adaptation
projects, programs, policies, and activities. The GCF is to be capitalized
by contributions from donor countries and other sources, including both
innovative mechanisms and the private sector. Currently, the GCF complements many
of the existing multilateral climate change funds (e.g., the Global Environment
Facility, the Climate Investment Funds, and the Adaptation Fund); however,
as the official financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, some Parties believe
that it may eventually replace or subsume the other funds. While many
Parties expect capitalization and operation of the GCF to begin shortly after
the November 2013 conference in Warsaw, Poland, many issues remain to be
clarified, and some involve long-standing and contentious debate. They
include what role the CGF would play in providing sustained finance at
scale, how it would fit into the existing development assistance and
climate financing architecture, how it would be capitalized, and how it would
allocate and deliver assistance efficiently and effectively to developing
countries.

The U.S. Congress—through its role in authorizations, appropriations, and
oversight—would have significant input on U.S. participation in the GCF.
Congress regularly determines and gives guidance to the allocation of
foreign aid between bilateral and multilateral assistance as well as among
the variety of multilateral mechanisms. In the past, Congress has raised
concerns regarding the cost, purpose, direction, efficiency, and
effectiveness of the UNFCCC and existing international institutions of
climate financing. Potential authorizations and appropriations for the GCF
would rest with several committees, including the U.S. House of Representatives Committees
on Foreign Affairs (various subcommittees); Financial Services (Subcommittee on International
Monetary Policy and Trade); and Appropriations (Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs); and the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Relations (Subcommittee
on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International
Environmental Protection); and Appropriations (Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs). As of April 2013, the U.S. Administration—through its
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 150 account—has made no
specific budget request for appropriated funds to be contributed to the
GCF.

Date of Report: April 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 16Order Number: R41889Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Oversight
of EPA regulatory actions is expected to be the main focus of interest as the
113th Congress considers air quality
issues.

Air quality has improved substantially in the United States in the 40 years of
the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act regulation. According
to the agency’s science advisers and others, however, more needs to be
done to protect public health and the environment from the effects of air
pollution. Thus, the agency continues to promulgate regulations using authority given
it by Congress in amendments to the Clean Air Act more than 20 years ago.
Members of Congress from both parties have raised questions about the
cost-effectiveness of some of these regulations and/or whether the agency
has exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating them. Others in
Congress have supported EPA, noting that the Clean Air Act, often affirmed in
court decisions, has authorized or required the agency’s actions.

EPA’s regulatory actions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been one focus
of congressional interest. Although the Obama Administration has
consistently said that it would prefer that Congress pass new legislation
to address climate change, such legislation now appears unlikely. Instead,
over the last four years, EPA has developed GHG emission standards using its existing
Clean Air Act authority. Relying on a finding that GHGs endanger public health
and welfare, the agency promulgated GHG emission standards for cars and
light trucks on May 7, 2010, and again on October 15, 2012, and for larger
trucks on September 15, 2011. The implementation of these standards, in
turn, triggered permitting and Best Available Control Technology
requirements for new major stationary sources of GHGs (power plants, manufacturing
facilities, etc.).

It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources that has raised the
most concern in Congress: legislation has been considered in both the
House and Senate aimed at preventing EPA from implementing these
requirements. The House passed several of these bills in the 112th Congress, but none of them passed the
Senate.

Besides addressing climate change, EPA has taken action on a number of other
air pollution regulations, generally in response to court actions
remanding previous rules. Remanded rules included the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule—rules designed to control the
long-range transport of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants
through cap-and-trade programs. Other remanded rules include hazardous air
pollutant standards for boilers and cement kilns (standards referred to as
“MACT” standards). EPA has addressed the court remands through new
regulations, but many in Congress view these regulations as overly
stringent. In the 112th Congress, the House passed four
bills (H.R. 2250, H.R. 2401, H.R. 2681, and H.R. 3409) to delay or revoke the
new standards and change the statutory requirements for their
replacements. None of these passed the Senate, however. EPA also recently
proposed a controversial rule to lower the sulfur content of gasoline, in
conjunction with tighter (“Tier3”) standards for motor vehicle emissions.

In addition to these rules, EPA is also reviewing ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone and other widespread air pollutants. These standards
serve as EPA’s definition of clean air, and drive a range of regulatory controls.
The revised NAAQS and EPA’s review process have also faced opposition in
Congress. As passed by the House in the 112th Congress,
H.R. 2401 and H.R. 3409 would have amended the Clean Air Act to require
EPA to consider feasibility and cost in

Date of Report: April 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 22Order Number: R42895Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.